Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why are southern Han considered "Hanized" natives?


  • Please log in to reply
395 replies to this topic

#391 bonichang

bonichang

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Criminology and Criminal Justice

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:56 PM


You don't have to talk about Cantonese and Fujianese like all other Chinese have to stay away from them. There certainly is higher concentration of other countries intermixing with these areas of trade. There is nothing wrong with trade. But technically speaking that is all the Chinese eastern seaboard from Beijing to Hainan because of the simple waterway called the ocean. However people found very into the interior are also intermixed. From history we can tell people from the former Xi Xia area were Tanguts and the people must have found there way into the interior of China starting with Shanxi and Shaanxi.

Hanized natives...hanized outsiders, all hanized by the various dynasties that ultimately taught themselves to use the chopstick.

Don't forget there are also other dynasties, by different names, originating from the Central Plains, Mongols and Manchus. However, My conclusion is that China are people of different genes, some more alike than others and the similar ones were group as Hàn​rén by the new post imperial leaders, for nation building purposes. Others are obviously distinct races, like the Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongols, Manchus, Zhuàng, etc and that was why they were independantly grouped.

 

People from Sì​chuān are originally Tibetans and that is why Tibet included it in their claim. That may expalin the high cheek bones. Most people under the subset Hàn​rén seems to have emerged as one 'race' though it is confusing to many that they can look very different.

 

The best way is to see it like USA. The Americans comprised of many races who migrated there but they are all called Americans. Chinese is not a race but a name for all nationals of China.



#392 Trimac20

Trimac20

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:05 AM

I find that a Sichuan people have very hight check-bones, face round . They are right?

I heard that the North people taller than South people because in the pass North people eat wheat , rice in the South. Protein of wheat is highter than 15 time to rice.
Today, the height of South people is the same North people in youth because cereal is not still the main food. Even Singapore youth is taller than Peking youth.

 

Most definitely not true. Young Singaporeans are definitely taller than their parents, but they're not as tall as the young northern Chinese. I've been to both Southern and Northern China and the difference is obvious.



#393 YummYakitori

YummYakitori

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Languages spoken:English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Teochew, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian (a bit)
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese 漢族
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History 朝鮮歷史 조선역사

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:52 AM

 
Most definitely not true. Young Singaporeans are definitely taller than their parents, but they're not as tall as the young northern Chinese. I've been to both Southern and Northern China and the difference is obvious.

SOME Singaporean youths ARE TALLER than / on par with Northern Chinese. But on average, Northern Chinese remain on the winning side.

Most Singaporean youths at 13/14 are like 15x to 16x. With few in the 17xs and 18xs.

Northern Chinese youths are mostly 17x and above from what I observe. Very few Northern Chinese are 15x-16x.

I thought high cheekbones was a very common feature in Han Chinese o_o I personally have rather high ones. Many Singaporean Chinese have high cheekbones as well.

If you think the original skin color of Southern Chinese is considered very pale, look at the Northern Chinese, they are just about one or two steps from being Caucasian-white. Some of them look like they have never been under the sun before.
Буурэг дэрсэнд уурэглэсэн бужин туулай нь ч амгалан Булээн нууранд нь ганганалдсан хотон шувууд нь ч амгалан Буувэй санаа нь ивлэсэн Бусгуй сэптгэл нь ч амгалан хонхон дуутай бойтгийг нь Цэцэг унсэх нь энхрийхэн хöгöн горхины урсгалд нь Цэнгэг хараахай зуггуйхэн Хиртэшгуй ариухан дагшинд нь Монголын узэсгэлэн яруухан

#394 Hanshan

Hanshan

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chinese culture, specifically traditional and contemporary Chinese music and poetry.
  • Languages spoken:Chinese, Japanese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Language and intermediate knowledge of Chinese philospohy, music, and culture.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

I don't mean to dance around the main issue here, but are you all making these arguments with or without the understanding that at various points in Chinese history, China made vassal states out of everyone. Their cultural influence is surely intertwined with all of its neighboring countries, just as the Han incorporated influences from other countries into their culture as well (not only during Yuan and Qing dynasties, but look to Modern Era Westernization of government, eductaion, etc, and the pop culture of Korea and Japan on Chinese youth today). Cultural interaction aside, I believe the OP mentioned "interbreeding" as well. Well of course there is Northern blood in Southern Chinese, Southern blood in Northern Chinese, Vietnamese blood in Southern Chinese, and Southern Chinese blood in Vietnamese. There are perverts in this world who will have sex with animals...do you think that the people from neighboring countries within similar cultures and traditions (even if we take them as markedly different) wouldn't mix? Even if political borders remained static through the ages, there would still be mixing. But, obviously, borders are not static. 

I don't mean to oversimplify or anything without getting into the details you are mentioning here, but without acknowlegding that every group within a partiuclar region influences one another culturally AND genetically, arguments like this get reduced to nationalistic gestures and go nowhere.

I haven't read the last pages of this thread yet, so I haven't seen where this goes. But the arguments on the first three pages seem too biased for value to be ascribed to their messages.
 


Edited by Hanshan, 10 January 2013 - 03:08 PM.


#395 Hanshan

Hanshan

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chinese culture, specifically traditional and contemporary Chinese music and poetry.
  • Languages spoken:Chinese, Japanese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Language and intermediate knowledge of Chinese philospohy, music, and culture.

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

Also, people shouldn't be confused by pheotypic differences within a single "race." People are way more varied than the stereotyped views we (at least in the US) were brought up to believe.

Sorry if these posts sound like I am upset. I do not intend them to come off that way.



#396 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

I don't mean to dance around the main issue here, but are you all making these arguments with or without the understanding that at various points in Chinese history, China made vassal states out of everyone. Their cultural influence is surely intertwined with all of its neighboring countries, just as the Han incorporated influences from other countries into their culture as well (not only during Yuan and Qing dynasties, but look to Modern Era Westernization of government, eductaion, etc, and the pop culture of Korea and Japan on Chinese youth today). Cultural interaction aside, I believe the OP mentioned "interbreeding" as well. Well of course there is Northern blood in Southern Chinese, Southern blood in Northern Chinese, Vietnamese blood in Southern Chinese, and Southern Chinese blood in Vietnamese. There are perverts in this world who will have sex with animals...do you think that the people from neighboring countries within similar cultures and traditions (even if we take them as markedly different) wouldn't mix? Even if political borders remained static through the ages, there would still be mixing. But, obviously, borders are not static. 

I don't mean to oversimplify or anything without getting into the details you are mentioning here, but without acknowlegding that every group within a partiuclar region influences one another culturally AND genetically, arguments like this get reduced to nationalistic gestures and go nowhere.

I haven't read the last pages of this thread yet, so I haven't seen where this goes. But the arguments on the first three pages seem too biased for value to be ascribed to their messages.
 

 

I too have noticed the biases.  If you're interested to talk more about this I can begin by saying that many times the confusion about China is that there is some sort of ultimate or Taiji, sort of like the Tibetans and their vision of Shambhala.  Why are these myths created?  I think it is because man exercised a need to either deliver himself to some higher inner sanctum or to ward off what he thought was evil and therefore invented psychological mechanisms that were often mistakened for reality.  The Zhou believed their "Shambhala" was the middle country or Zhong Guo in which they lived in.  This therefore excluded people in states that were peripheral to their own such as Qin Qi Yan Chu as being lower status whom had to be ruled.    The Mongolians believed Shambhala was somewhere in southern Siberia near Kazakhstan.  The Tibetans thought their "pure land" was somewhere in Inner Asia which could include Tibet Xinjiang and Mongolia but most likely in the Himalayan ranges..  All these examples are collection of territories which border into many distinctive areas.  One cannot obviously believe the Kingdom of Shambhala is the whole of some mountain range and yet that is what many of these groups identify as being pure or chosen.  So I think the biased value in which you speak is that people highlight a region without being aware that it is really shared with another region or that it incorporates several regions.  This certainly entails a sharing of ideas values and is obviously not pure.  The land of China did not need extraterritoriality from neighboring Korea Japan Vietnam Mongolia Xinjiang Tibet in order for its singular detachment and "Chinese" status and bias to occur.  The biases have began within its own territory when city states began building walls to box themselves in on all sides.  For about 3000 years Chinese have been trying to get out of their magic boxes and then suddenly there was the Han dynasty which included more people but ended up drawing only a bigger box around them.  For about 2000 years Chinese have therefore been trying to get out of this "Han" box and have somewhat escaped it.  I can only hope the Diao Yu Islands doesn't present too much of a magic box.


I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users